Sad recruiting record (on paper)

I would not call OSU's recruiting "SAD", although I agree with Thickhead's last statement as 3 strong reasons for the Beaver's success. I would say OSU is doing fairly well with improving signs. Also, JS was/is ranked as the #7 international player by PN for 2018. I think Westbrook (#2) was a near miss in 2017. And, while DS was not a direct recruiting "win" per say, she IS on the team and was #7 in 2016 by PN.

PM was/is #147...definitely under the radar and a developmental player, as SR pretty much indicated.

for 2019, Taylor Jones is #15 and presumably will sign in November, Kemmery Martin #33 was a close call, and Kennedy Brown #58 is pending. I think in a year or 2 OSU will directly sign a top 10 player!

I wouldn't call the Beavers recruiting as 'sad' by any means, but I recently did the same thing thickhead did and look at how the Beavers recruiting ranked in the Pac12 the past several years, and basically I just about every year, the Beavers would be ranked somewhere around the middle of the Pac. The difference would be that Beavers recruiting was pretty steady around that middle to upper teir, whereas a lot of other teams would be inconsistent. Some years an Arizona, Arizona State, Washington, Cal, etc would have a really good class, and then the next year their class would rank near the bottom. Stanford is pretty steady near the top......of course. I didn't do an average over the 2013-2018 time span, but if I (or someone) would check, I think the Beavers would be upper tier because of their steady strong (although not spectacular) class the last few seasons.

It will be interesting to see how the next couple seasons of recruiting go. The 2019 class is off to a strong start with Taylor. And the Beavers are still in on 3 or 4 that are ranked in the top 50 that I am aware of. The middle school, and High school girls of these last few years saw 3 straight Pac12 titles for the Beavers, 2 elite 8 appearances, and one final four. That has definitely turned heads and is why girls like Rickea Jackson and Brea Beal will at least listen to the Beavers. I wrote this in an earlier post, but out of the consensus top 10 recruits of 2020, at least 5 are paying attention to the Beavers and listening to Beavers coaches recruiting pitch. This would not of been the case a few years ago. Now, it would be fun to land a few of these.

baseba1111 is right, you know.

Hold up - a team with a range of top 100 players (regardless if in the upper vs lower 50) is sad recruiting??? 10 programs MAX in the nation (out of of 349) get a top 10 recruit each year, and spreading 100 players around 350 teams gets think pretty quickly. I believe we've had a total of 5 ESPN 100 players in the last decade on the men's side (coaches' sons + Collier and Nelson -- giving credence to having access to exposure has a lot to making such lists).

I would expect having 5+ top 100 players on one team (and more that aren't far off the list) is going to make for a pretty solid team. Not taking away from Rueck's coaching ability, but he's not working with scrubs these days.

Number of top 100 recruits (Hoopgurlz ratings) who were signed by PAC 12 schools over the last 4 years: 

Oregon State  7 (does not include Destiny)

Oregon          7

Washington    2

Wash. St.       1

Cal                8

Stanford        9

UCLA             8

USC               8

Arizona          3

Arizona St.     4

Utah              1

Colorado        2

Doesn't look to me like we aren't getting our share. Oh, and look back where Hoopgurlz had Kelsey Plum the same year they put Sid at 80 - somewhere around number 60, 3 notches higher than they had Goodman.

Ok, so your point is that our recruiting is not on par with the Notre Dame and UConns of the world, which would be needed to move from a top 10 program (but not top 5) - I completely agree with that. In women's basketball in particular, the gap between 1-5 and 5-10 is still often pretty significant compared to the men's game, primarily due to the lack of players leaving early. That said, OSU is chipping away at getting more players closer and even at this top-tier caliber (instead of needing to develop them). And it seems a bit ludicrous in general to be complaining we aren't recruiting as well as a UConn or Notre Dame (frankly, to even be recruiting as well as UCLA and Stanford is an amazing accomplishment). 

I'm personally really high on Simmons, Aquino and Slocum - I believe that is a core foundation that can challenge for it all. But my opinion is even more worthless than any biased recruiting service.